SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," said one advocate.
To the chagrin of First Amendment defenders and content creators, the Supreme Court on Friday appeared poised to uphold a law passed by Congress last year that would shut down the widely popular social media app TikTok in the U.S. unless its owner, the Chinese company ByteDance, sells it.
The de facto ban on TikTok was tucked into a $95 billion legislative package for aid to Ukraine and Israel that was passed by the Senate in April 2024. A standalone version of the legislation cleared the House with bipartisan support a month earlier. It is set to go into effect on January 19, barring a sale by ByteDance or intervention by the Supreme Court.
The law was justified on national security grounds, which were fueled by fears that national security laws in China could compel ByteDance to give the Chinese government access to data on TikTok users.
Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, wrote Thursday: "The U.S. government stood up to TikTok before they stood up to[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, or the health insurance lobby, or Big Pharma, or Big Oil—no. TikTok. Completely out of touch with the American people. Both parties."
During oral arguments, "justices across the ideological spectrum asked tough questions of both sides, [but] the overall tone and thrust appeared to suggest greater skepticism toward the arguments by lawyers for TikTok and its users that the First Amendment barred Congress from enacting the law," according to Friday reporting from The New York Times.
However, the Times also noted that "several justices were skeptical about a major part of the government's justification for the law: the risk that China might 'covertly' make TikTok manipulate the content shown to Americans or collect user data to achieve its geopolitical aims."
Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing on TikTok's appeal of the ban, three bipartisan lawmakers were among the First Amendment advocates who filed amicus briefs in support of the app in late December. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked the court to grant TikTok an emergency injunction to block the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
The ACLU, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), and the Freedom of the Press Foundation were among several civil liberties groups that also filed an amicus brief in late December, arguing that the government has not presented sufficient evidence that the app, which is used by 170 million Americans, causes "ongoing or imminent harm."
In a statement released Friday, the Free Press policy counsel Yanni Chen said that "as with repressive laws from oppressive regimes around the world, the real toll of the ban will be on everyday people... TikTok users, many of whom use the platform to organize communities and express views that legacy media often ignore."
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," she added.
Calling Cooper "courageous," executive director of the state's ACLU noted that with this decision, the Democrat "has commuted more death sentences than any governor in North Carolina's history."
Death penalty abolitionists are praising former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for one of his final actions in office: The Democrat on Tuesday commuted the sentences of 15 men on death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Term-limited Cooper—who passed the torch to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein on Wednesday after eight years in office—announced the decision following a campaign by racial justice advocates and outgoing President Joe Biden's decision last week to commute the sentences of 37 people on federal death row to counter an expected killing spree under President-elect Donald Trump.
Although no executions have occurred in North Carolina in nearly two decades due to ongoing litigation, Cooper received clemency petitions from 89 of the 136 people on death row in the state, according to his office. After reviewing each case, the governor—who previously served as the state's attorney general for 16 years—granted 15.
"These reviews are among the most difficult decisions a governor can make, and the death penalty is the most severe sentence that the state can impose," Cooper said in a statement. "After thorough review, reflection, and prayer, I concluded that the death sentence imposed on these 15 people should be commuted, while ensuring they will spend the rest of their lives in prison."
Big news in North Carolina: Governor Cooper, on his final day in office, commuted the sentences of 15 people on death row. (That's roughly 10% of the state's row.) www.npr.org/2024/12/31/g... We had reported last year on the urgent campaign to get Cooper to commute on his way out:
[image or embed]
— Taniel ( @taniel.bsky.social) December 31, 2024 at 7:35 PM
Welcoming the announcement, Chantal Stevens, executive director of ACLU of North Carolina, said that "with this action, Gov. Cooper has commuted more death sentences than any governor in North Carolina's history and joins the ranks of a group of courageous leaders who used their executive authority to address the failed death penalty."
"We have long known that the death penalty in North Carolina is racially biased, unjust, and immoral, and the governor's actions today pave the way for our state to move towards a new era of justice," Stevens continued. "This historic decision, following President Biden's decision to commute the sentences of 37 people on federal death row, reflects growing recognition that the death penalty belongs in our past, not our future."
"With 121 people still on death row in our state, we know there is much more work to be done to realize that vision, and the ACLU of North Carolina will continue to advocate for the end of the death penalty once and for all," she added.
Thank you Gov. Roy Cooper for sparing 15 lives from the death penalty. The carceral system should not be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to put people to death – it's the cruelest and only irreversible punishment. #ncpol www.cbs17.com/news/north-c...
[image or embed]
— Prison Policy Initiative ( @prisonpolicy.bsky.social) December 31, 2024 at 4:32 PM
Stevens' group as well as the national ACLU's Capital Punishment Project, the Center for Death Penalty Litigation (CDPL), the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Durham attorney Jay H. Ferguson have represented Hasson Bacote, who brought the lead case challenging the death penalty under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act (RJA).
Bacote, a 38-year-old Black man convicted of first-degree murder in Johnston County in 2009, was among those who had their sentences commuted on Wednesday. According to Cooper's office, the other 14 men are:
"We are thrilled for Mr. Bacote and the other... people on death row who had their sentences commuted by Gov. Cooper today," said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU's Capital Punishment Project. "This decision is a historic step towards ending the death penalty in North Carolina, but the fight for justice does not end here. We remain hopeful that the court will issue a ruling under the state's Racial Justice Act in Mr. Bacote's case that we can leverage for relief for the many others that still remain on death row."
The North Carolina General Assembly passed the RJA, which barred seeking or imposing the death penalty based on race, in 2009. Although state legislators then repealed the law in 2013, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that those who had already filed claims under it should still receive hearings.
Bacote's evidentiary hearing began last February, and the court heard closing arguments in August. LDF senior counsel Ashley Burrell noted Tuesday that "the RJA hearing demonstrated that racial bias infiltrates all death penalty cases in North Carolina, not just Mr. Bacote's and those in Johnston County."
Shelagh Kenney, deputy director of the Durham-based CDPL, similarly said that "Mr. Bacote brought forth unequivocal evidence, unlike any that’s ever been presented in a North Carolina courtroom, that the death penalty is racist."
"Through years of investigation and the examination of thousands of pages of documents, his case revealed a deep entanglement between the death penalty and North Carolina's history of segregation and racial terror," Kenney added. "We are happy Mr. Bacote got the relief he deserves, and we hope Gov. Cooper's action will be a step toward ending North Carolina's racist and error-prone death penalty for good."
NC Newslinereported that "the commutations came as inmates in North Carolina face a ticking clock on the death penalty, which has been on hold for nearly 20 years amid challenges to the punishment's legality. Should the courts in North Carolina rule against those challenges, executions could resume with haste, as dozens of the state's death row inmates have exhausted all other avenues for appeal."
Separately on Tuesday, Cooper announced commutations for 54-year-old Brian Fuller, who has served 27 years after being convicted of second-degree murder in Rockingham County, and 63-year-old Joseph Bromfield, 63, who has served 34 years after being convicted of first-degree murder in Cumberland County. They will both become parole eligible immediately.
Cooper also pardoned 43-year-old Brandon Wallace, who was convicted of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and marijuana in Lee County in 2007, and 53-year-old John "Jack" Campbell, who was convicted of selling cocaine in Wake County in 1984
The decisions capped off Cooper's two terms as governor, during which he often had to contend with Republicans' veto-proof legislative majorities. Due to that experience, the Democrat frequently faces speculation that he may pursue federal office.
"If you're going to run for public office again, you must have your heart and soul in it, you must have the fire in the belly," Cooper
toldThe Associated Press in December, explaining that he plans to spend the next few months considering his future. "I'm going to think about how I can best contribute to the things that I care about."
"Banning this social media platform would trample on the constitutional rights of over 170 million Americans."
Update (December 28):
On Friday evening, President-elect Donald Trump filed a brief with the Supreme Court that took no position on whether a ban on TikTok would violate First Amendment rights. Instead, he wrote that he has "consummate deal-making expertise," and as president would be able to "negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government."
Trump touted his understanding of social media, noting that he has 14.7 million followers on TikTok. He also said the timing of the impending ban—one day before he takes office–interferes with his "ability to manage the United States’ foreign policy and to pursue a resolution" that will preserve the app in the United States and protect national security.
Earlier:
Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court's scheduled hearing on social media company TikTok's appeal regarding a ban on the popular platform, three bipartisan lawmakers were among the First Amendment advocates who filed amicus briefs in support of the app on Friday.
Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) were joined by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in asking the court to grant TikTok an emergency injunction to block the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act from banning the app on January 19 unless the platform's Chinese parent company sells its stake by then.
The law and its ban on TikTok would "deprive millions of Americans of their First Amendment rights," said the lawmakers.
"The TikTok ban does not survive First Amendment scrutiny," Markey, Paul, and Khanna added. "Its principal justification—preventing covert content manipulation by the Chinese government—reflects a desire to control the content on the TikTok platform and in any event could be achieved through a less restrictive alternative."
The law was signed by President Joe Biden in April over the objections of First Amendment advocates, and a federal appeals court upheld the ban earlier this month. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear TikTok's challenge.
The ACLU, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), and the Freedom of the Press Foundation were among several civil liberties groups that also filed a amicus brief on Friday, arguing that the government has not presented sufficient evidence that the app, which is used by 170 million Americans, causes "ongoing or imminent harm."
Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said the government's attempt to ban Americans from using TikTok, which some creators use to share commentary on geopolitical events as well as weighing in on pop culture and creating humorous videos, is "extraordinary and unprecedented."
"This social media platform has allowed people around the world to tell their own stories in key moments of social upheaval, war, and natural disaster while reaching immense global audiences," Toomey said.
TikTok, he said, is "a unique forum for expression online—and the connections and community that so many have built there cannot be easily replaced. TikTok creators can't simply transfer their audiences and followers to another app, and TikTok users can't simply reassemble the many voices they've discovered on the platform."
At CDT, Free Expression Project director Kate Ruane said the groups' amicus brief "makes clear that national security interests do not diminish protections afforded by the First Amendment and that courts must impose the same rigorous standards to laws that restrict speech."
"It further argues that the D.C. Circuit misapplied strict scrutiny when it failed to significantly examine the government's vague and nonspecific national security justifications for enacting the statute," said Ruane. "In light of the law's sweeping ban on free expression, the coalition's brief argues that the court should block implementation of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act."